Relational dialectics as a framework for community-campus partners to collaborate despite differences Rebecca Dumlao, Associate Professor, East Carolina University [dumlaor@ecu.edu]
Emily Janke, Director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina at Greensboro [emjanke@uncg.edu]
Keywords: Relational dialectics, collaboration, navigating differences, managing tensions, communication
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary Community and campus partners face differences as they span boundaries to work together. Successful collaboration between community-campus partners involves navigating differences and managing related tensions to promote reciprocity, mutual benefit, and long-term sustainability. Still, tensions between partners are often seen as problems, indicating that something is wrong and must be fixed. Presenters will introduce relational dialectics, which argues for positively framing tensions between partners as inherent and natural.
Relational Dialectics Theory (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) assumes: (a) that life is relational and that relationships are characterized by change; (b) relational change is not linear but multidirectional, has many different possible meanings, and is never finished; (c) contradictions or dialectical tensions are inherent and fundamental in relational life; and (d) communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational dialectics, which help each person (in a partnership to) constitute his/her social reality (West & Turner, 2010, p. 204).
We will share evidence from the literature as a way to introduce tensions we’ve experienced or studied. In the session participants will be encouraged to share their own stories about tensions they’ve experienced in campus-community partnerships as a way to connect their personal knowing to theory. We will examine common tensions, identify consequences of communication responses and discuss the usefulness of developing scales that measure different types of tensions, the severity or frequency of tensions, and partners’ responses to tensions.
Ultimately, dialectical thinking and related conversations set up conditions and processes necessary to help partners develop a sense of "connected knowing" and to achieve the goals of trust, mutual respect, and reciprocity. This approach to collaborative communication can help participants to think in new ways, respond effectively to differences, and sustain their partnerships over time.
References Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69-88.
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1-22.
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 341–369). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (1998). Choice points for dialecticians: A dialectical-transactional perspective on close relationships. In B. Montgomery & L. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 137–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dumlao, R., & Janke, E., (2012). Using relational dialectics to address differences in community-campus partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(2), 151-175.
Erbert, L. A., Mearns, G. M., & Dena, S. (2005). Perceptions of turning points and dialectical interpretations in organizational team development. Small Group Research, 36(1), 21-58.
Hayes, E., & Cuban, S. (1997). Border of pedagogy: A critical framework for service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 72–80.
Janke, E. M. (2008). Shared partnership identity between faculty and community partners (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3336046)
Palowski, D. (2006). Dialectical tensions in families experiencing acute health issues: Stroke survivors’ perceptions. In L. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 469–487). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sabourin, T. (2003). The contemporary American family: A dialectical perspective on communication and relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30-43
Toller, P. (2005). Negotiations of dialectical contradictions by parents who have experienced the death of a child. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(1), 46-66.
West, R., & Turner, L. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, S., & Sabee, C. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In J. Green & B. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 3-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Relational dialectics as a framework for community-campus partners to collaborate despite differences
Rebecca Dumlao, Associate Professor, East Carolina University [dumlaor@ecu.edu]
Emily Janke, Director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement, University of North Carolina at Greensboro [emjanke@uncg.edu]
Keywords: Relational dialectics, collaboration, navigating differences, managing tensions, communication
Conference track: Community partnerships and outcomes
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary
Community and campus partners face differences as they span boundaries to work together. Successful collaboration between community-campus partners involves navigating differences and managing related tensions to promote reciprocity, mutual benefit, and long-term sustainability. Still, tensions between partners are often seen as problems, indicating that something is wrong and must be fixed. Presenters will introduce relational dialectics, which argues for positively framing tensions between partners as inherent and natural.
Relational Dialectics Theory (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) assumes: (a) that life is relational and that relationships are characterized by change; (b) relational change is not linear but multidirectional, has many different possible meanings, and is never finished; (c) contradictions or dialectical tensions are inherent and fundamental in relational life; and (d) communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational dialectics, which help each person (in a partnership to) constitute his/her social reality (West & Turner, 2010, p. 204).
We will share evidence from the literature as a way to introduce tensions we’ve experienced or studied. In the session participants will be encouraged to share their own stories about tensions they’ve experienced in campus-community partnerships as a way to connect their personal knowing to theory. We will examine common tensions, identify consequences of communication responses and discuss the usefulness of developing scales that measure different types of tensions, the severity or frequency of tensions, and partners’ responses to tensions.
Ultimately, dialectical thinking and related conversations set up conditions and processes necessary to help partners develop a sense of "connected knowing" and to achieve the goals of trust, mutual respect, and reciprocity. This approach to collaborative communication can help participants to think in new ways, respond effectively to differences, and sustain their partnerships over time.
References
Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69-88.
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1-22.
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 341–369). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (1998). Choice points for dialecticians: A dialectical-transactional perspective on close relationships. In B. Montgomery & L. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 137–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dumlao, R., & Janke, E., (2012). Using relational dialectics to address differences in community-campus partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(2), 151-175.
Erbert, L. A., Mearns, G. M., & Dena, S. (2005). Perceptions of turning points and dialectical interpretations in organizational team development. Small Group Research, 36(1), 21-58.
Hayes, E., & Cuban, S. (1997). Border of pedagogy: A critical framework for service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 72–80.
Janke, E. M. (2008). Shared partnership identity between faculty and community partners (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3336046)
Palowski, D. (2006). Dialectical tensions in families experiencing acute health issues: Stroke survivors’ perceptions. In L. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 469–487). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sabourin, T. (2003). The contemporary American family: A dialectical perspective on communication and relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30-43
Toller, P. (2005). Negotiations of dialectical contradictions by parents who have experienced the death of a child. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(1), 46-66.
West, R., & Turner, L. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, S., & Sabee, C. (2003). Explicating communicative competence as a theoretical term. In J. Green & B. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 3-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wood, J. (2007). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: